A few years ago (2014, in fact) I had an email discussion with a man who had changed his mind and decided to become an atheist. He therefore adopted evolution as a world view. I made the following points to him in a couple emails. He never responded after email number two.
(Radioactive isotope half life proof of age.) Why is it not possible for God to have created radioactive isotopes with a portion of their half lives already expended? If he created the world he certainly could have done that. G. Brent Dalrymple, an atheist advocate, and others can not create something from nothing. Indeed, no man, or group of men can without using resources already in the creation. No, not a single speck of dust.
The debate is about a difference between two worldviews - - Creationist vs Evolutionist. Each must start by making basic assumptions. They take these assumptions by faith. One view takes the position that creation took place in six days, the other takes the view that creation is a process that has been on-going for billions of years. It takes faith - assumptions - to hold to either view (perhaps much more faith to hold the evolutionist view).
Once you have the faith you can use whatever evidence you find to support your view, or abandon one view for the other.
I take the view that God created the world in six days to include the sedimentary layering of the Grand Canyon and the presence of radioactive isotopes that have apparently expended some portion of their half-lives.
Evidence is simply the presence of observable facts such as the half-life of isotopes or layering of geologic sediments. The difference in world views determines what we do with the evidence. What we do with that evidence requires assumptions and reasoning. The reasoning part is easy, it either stands up to the scrutiny of other (responsible and honest) peers, or it doesn't.
But, try as you may, there are always assumptions. A good scientific paper lists the assumptions. It then presents the evidence and draws conclusions about the evidence. Some scientists have drawn the conclusion that isotopic half-life proves millions of years of evolution. Other scientists do not accept the conclusion.
(The Scientific Method) I understand what the Scientific Method is. I never meant to imply that scientists do not work hard and they are not honest with their results. I believe most evolutionists and creationists hold their beliefs sincerely, though some from each camp have resorted to bickering and name-calling.
Man has free will and can decide to believe either the evolutionist or creationist view. When pressed a person must eventually choose between: “Did God create what we see and experience?” - - or - - “Is all part of natural processes that have no particular meaning?”
The creation is either old (trillions of years), or new (7000 to 8000 years). Some scientists personally choose to believe that there is a God and that he is the creator of what we see and experience. other scientists reject that notion. At some point every scientist chose what group he/she would belong to, and he/she did it through faith. They chose: “I believe there is a creator” or they chose: “I do not believe in a creator”. This is why I say it's a matter of faith: some choose to see the evidence as pointing to a creator and others do not.
As for transitional forms - - evidence from the fossil record showing a transition from one species to another - - there are none. To my knowledge there is no uncontested evidence of transitional forms. The fossils show only discrete species and none that demonstrate a transition from one type to another. Apes are always apes, and men are always men. If evolution is true - - and the earth is millions of years old - - there should be lots of them. They should be all through the fossil record. They should be existent today.
Some might say, “the transitional form only exists for a short period before the more permanent form takes hold.” On an evolutionary time scale this transition would be a sort of a “flash in the pan”. Why do we not see “flashes in the pan” today? We do not see them. It takes faith to believe the “flash in the pan” exists.
